Demolition of an existing garage /store and the erection of a new double garage, double car port and garden store plus associated external works

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 31 July 2026 by S. Hartley BA (Hons) Dist.TP (Manc) DMS MRTPI MRICS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:03 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010999 30 Mill Lane, Ryther, North Yorkshire LS24 9EG • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr. Jon Topper against the decision of North Yorkshire Councill. • The application is reference ZG2026/0213/HPA. • The development proposed is the demolition of an existing garage /store and the erection of a new double garage, double car port and garden store plus associated external works. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the demolition of an existing garage /store and the erection of a new double garage, double car port and garden store plus associated external works at 30 Mill Lane, Ryther, North Yorkshire LS24 9EG in accordance with the terms of the application reference ZG2026/0213/HPA subject to the following conditions: - (1) The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than three years from the date of this decision. (2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: - 0001 - 001; 0001-002; 0001-003 ; 0001 – 004 and 0001 – 005 Rev A . (3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be as stated on the approved plan 0001 - 005 Rev A. (4) Floor levels for the proposed development shall be set no lower than existing levels on the proposed building location. Procedural Matter 2. A draft National Planning Policy Framework ‘Plan-making and national decision- making policies’ was issued by the Government for consultation on 16 December 2025 (Consultation Draft Framework) and with a deadline for comments by 10 March 2026. No final decisions upon the consultation have yet been announced. Therefore, and for this reason, I afford the Consultation Draft Framework limited weight as a material planning consideration. In respect of the main issue, I have afforded full weight to the published National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (as amended) (the Framework) and the adopted development plan for the area. In this Appeal Decision Appeal Ref: 6010999 2 case, the Consultation Draft Framework does not alter or outweigh my conclusion below regarding the appeal. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. 30 Mill Lane is a detached dwelling set within substantial grounds. There are other dwellings to either side of it, with open fields opposite and with open land beyond to the rear. Much of the host property lies within the settlement boundary but the proposed development would lie outside it. 5. The proposal is to demolish an existing detached garage to the rear of the property with a floor area of approximately 74m2 and a height of some 3.9 metres, by a linear shaped building consisting of a double garage, a double car port and garden store, amounting to around 90m2 and a height of approximately 6 metres, plus associated external works within the curtilage. The local planning authority (LPA) considers that this would amount to approximately a 21% increase in floor area and nearly a 90% increase by volume over the original garage if the car port is included, but with a reduction if not. 6. Policy H14 of the Selby Core Strategy Local Plan (2013) (CS) aims to ensure that an extension to development in the countryside is not visually intrusive and not a disproportionate addition to the original dwelling and is in keeping with other buildings in the area. However, the LPA considers that the proposed development constitutes an outbuilding as distinct to a house extension and I have no reason to disagree. 7. The LPA objects to the proposed development as it considers that the proposed height causes it to be unacceptably dominant and bulky, that it is not subordinate to the host property, and that it adversely affects the character and appearance of the area. Moreover, no evidence is supplied as to the use of the high ceiling area. 8. The proposed replacement would be single storey, with a roof pitch consistent with that of the dwelling and a consequent ridge height which approximates to, but is slightly less than, that of the host property. 9. The development would be set well back from Mill Lane, and while likely to be visible from it, the distance is such that it would not appear as unusually tall, visually assertive, or overly dominant. 10. In my judgement, the proposed development would have a proportionate scale in relation to the original dwelling. 11. Furthermore, I do not consider that it would be an incongruous and unacceptable development in relation to the spacious dwellings bordering the host property. There is high, evergreen hedging against No 36 Mill Lane and against which the proposed development would be sited, and no objections are recorded from the adjoining, or any neighbours. Appeal Decision Appeal Ref: 6010999 3 12. While the LPA considers that there is no functional requirement for a building of such a height, I can appreciate the design advantages of copying the roof pitch of the host property. While CS policy H14 is concerned with extensions to dwellings as distinct to outbuildings, it does state that development will be supported where the design and materials of the proposed extension would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the dwelling. 13. Overall, I conclude that the proposed development would accord with Policy ENV1 of the Selby Local Plan 2005, with policy SP19 of the CS, and with chapter 12 of the Framework, all of which aim for good design which supports and retains the character and appearance of the area. Conditions 14. The main parties have been given an opportunity to provide conditions. I have imposed the standard time condition and, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty, a condition relating to the approved plans. As the development is in a high risk flood area, I have imposed a condition regarding levels. Conclusion 15. There are no material planning considerations that indicate that the application should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal should be allowed. INSPECTOR S. Hartley